The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6167, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill. I invite Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion, in around six minutes please, minister.
14:39
I take this opportunity to thank both the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and their officials, for their hard work in scrutinising the bill.
This truly collaborative enterprise has involved the Parliament and the Scottish Government working together constructively for the greater good. As I have said before, it is an exemplar for the future. The importance of the bill was clearly demonstrated by the willingness of the committees to engage with the Scottish Government both in public and in private in order to explore and better understand the provisions in the bill and their effect. The in-depth understanding that all concerned have of the matters that are legislated for in the bill is reflected in the quality of the final product.
I also take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the external stakeholders who contributed to both the Scottish Government’s and the Parliament’s consultation exercises.
As members might be aware, the bill will repeal the remaining transitional orders made under the Scotland Act 1998. The orders were of use in that they allowed the Scottish Parliament immediately to start the important work of governing for the people of Scotland at the outset of devolution. They are being replaced with wholly Scottish provisions on legislative interpretation and procedure in devolved Scotland, decided on by this Parliament. After 10 years, that can only be right.
The bill deals with the publication, interpretation and operation of acts of the Scottish Parliament and instruments made under them; the making of subordinate legislation, the definition of a Scottish statutory instrument and the scrutiny procedures that will apply in the Scottish Parliament; the publication of Scottish legislation, both in print and on the web, and its preservation for future generations; and the procedure that applies to orders that are subject to special parliamentary procedure.
The bill implements the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s 12th report of 2008, on its inquiry into the regulatory framework in Scotland, and takes account of the subsequent comments of both the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, as well as the responses to the consultations on the bill that were carried out by the Government and the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
For example, the bill takes a modern approach to the application of legislation to the Crown and makes it clear how instruments that are made using powers derived from both Westminster and Holyrood are to be interpreted.
We have simplified where possible and clarified where we can. For example, section 27 sets out clearly what is included in the term “Scottish statutory instrument” and section 30(4) sets out clearly which instruments need not be laid before the Parliament. As recommended by the report, we have streamlined the number of classes of instrument and procedures to be followed. That simplification is long overdue and it will be much appreciated.
We have also listened to the concerns that were expressed at stage 2 and provided that emergency instruments, because of their special circumstances, may not be combined with any other procedure.
We have ensured that Westminster instruments and Scottish instruments that are being scrutinised by this Parliament will go through the same procedure. That creates certainty for the public and practitioners alike.
The issues that are dealt with in the bill are all highly technical matters and I appreciate the amount of time and effort that the members of both committees have put into considering the bill’s provisions. That has ensured that we will put in place provisions for the interpretation of the law and the scrutiny of subordinate legislation by the Parliament of which we can be proud.
Before I finish I commend once again the close co-operation of the Parliament and the Scottish Government on this very important bill. I hope that it is an example that we can follow in other cases.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I should have pointed out that, because the Parliament did not divide during consideration of amendments, we have a few minutes in hand, so I do not need to be too strict about the length of speeches. I call Paul Martin to speak on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party.
14:44
Your kindness overwhelms me, Presiding Officer. We have all recognised the importance of what has been a highly technical bill. I have said before that it is important legislation and that the subject has been debated since the birth of the Parliament way back in 1999. We have debated the issues and challenges surrounding the delivery of SSIs throughout the subject committees.
Like others, I pay tribute to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its hard work and diligence. Their hard work is tedious and it requires experience and considerable diligence. I commend the committee and the clerks for their hard work on the bill.
I will deal with a myth that is peddled in the Parliament—that business managers select members for the Subordinate Legislation Committee to punish them for past endeavours. I assure members that Helen Eadie, Rhoda Grant and Margaret Curran were not appointed to the committee as a punishment; their membership is in recognition of their vast experience in the Parliament and in interrogating important bills that must be passed. The Scottish Labour Party congratulates those members and I hope that they will have many more years of enjoying the committee’s endeavours.
Particularly Margaret Curran.
A reference has been made from a sedentary position to Margaret Curran. I assure members that she, too, is a diligent member of the committee. I wish her good luck in the years to come and in—I hope—a new role.
In the stage 1 debate, I raised issues about the publication and accessibility of acts. The committee acknowledged that
“legislation is ... most readily accessed online and accepts that print copies of Scottish legislation should no longer be the primary means for making legislation available.”
However, members might recall that I agreed with the committee’s statement that
“the provisions of the Bill as introduced appear to fall short in terms of preservation of Scottish legislation.”
I am delighted that the Government lodged stage 2 amendments to deal with that and I am satisfied that we have found a way forward that will preserve legislation for the future.
We have heard from Helen Eadie—I am glad that she arrived in time for the debate—who presented several challenges to the minister. To be fair to him, when I examined the Official Report, it became clear that he was looking for a way forward. The increase from 21 to 28 days to which Helen Eadie referred involved a positive exchange and is most welcome to Labour members. I advise the minister that it is important that we continue to examine the system, to ensure that committees are given ample opportunity to interrogate bills and SSIs. I commend the minister for the comfort that he has provided on that point.
We all agree, and I repeat, that the bill is of course highly technical. The debate has not been highly addictive for those who queued for tickets to the public gallery, but the bill is important and deals with arrangements that we have called several times for a review of. We will support the motion to pass the bill at decision time.
14:48
They say that if a politician is given a microphone, they will normally find plenty to say to fill the time that they have, but I assure the Presiding Officer that he will have every opportunity to extend the time of others following my brief speech.
Rarely can the timbers of this relatively new Parliament have shivered with so much excitement as they have during the bill’s progress through the committee rooms and the chamber. I will pay tribute to various people who have added to our excitement, enjoyment and understanding in dealing with the bill. The Subordinate Legislation Committee’s convener, Jamie Stone, managed to do what only Adam Boulton managed to do with Sky’s Scotland debate—to breathe life into something that would otherwise have been horrendously parochial. The convener did a splendid job of ensuring that we got through the business of considering extremely technical amendments with care.
I was going to say to the Presiding Officer—who has left the chair—that I admired the gallantry that he showed in forcing Mrs Eadie to continue without interruption on entering the chamber after her personal rehearsal for the women’s half-marathon. I feared for her wellbeing at one point. However, the committee thanks Mrs Eadie for the comprehensive and detailed way in which she shared with us, especially at stage 2, the extensive briefing that she had managed to amass on the numerous amendments that she wanted the committee to have an opportunity to consider. Although, ultimately, we did not share the conclusions at which she arrived, many members were grateful to her for the work that she did to highlight some of the issues.
I thank the minister for the way in which he co-operated with the Subordinate Legislation Committee throughout the process. Today he has resisted the temptation to make his remarks in any way exciting. I do not know whether that is his normal modus operandi but, given that this was a moment for him to shine, I know that he will have enjoyed taking the bill through the Parliament so safely and negotiating the withdrawal of the amendments that were to be considered.
For me, the only real issue of concern was the Balmoral question, which was addressed at stage 2 and to which the minister alluded in evidence to us. I was grateful to him for the way in which he was able to accommodate concerns that might have been expressed about the position of the sovereign in the consideration of legislation by the Parliament. I know that that will come as an enormous relief to all those who sit behind him on the nationalist benches.
The highlight of the stage 1 debate was the intervention by Dr McKee, who acknowledged that the other parties represented in the chamber that have yet to form a Government in Scotland will look forward to that prospect. At that point, I saw Patrick Harvie sit forward with due attention; I, too, perked up. I do not know whether Dr McKee was anticipating a Conservative-Green coalition from 2011. That may be what it takes—stranger things could happen. Dr McKee’s key point was that, ultimately, there is a requirement for the Parliament to ensure that, although instruments are debated in committee, they are able to progress through the Parliament. I say that as the spokesman in this debate for the one party with substantial representation in the Parliament that has not yet formed part of a devolved Administration in Scotland. The minister made the point that the consequences are not merely political arguments between politicians, but instruments that have a practical effect on the lives of individuals in the country. If we were to delay those instruments—at one point, the minister said that there was the potential to do so for 119 days—the consequences for individuals would be considerable.
Like other members, I am happy to conclude by thanking the clerks and all those who gave evidence to the committee, who have allowed consideration of a technical, necessary, rather dull but worthwhile bill to come to its conclusion. In its quiet way, the bill will improve the business of the Parliament and the legislation that we promote.
14:53
I speak this afternoon both as my party’s representative in the debate and as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I regard the convenership of the committee as a singular mark of my leader’s sincere favour. His predecessor, Nicol Stephen, showed similar favour to me when he promoted me from the Enterprise and Culture Committee to the Subordinate Legislation committee during the previous session.
On a serious note, I thank the clerks, not just to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, but to all committees that have been involved in the bill process. On behalf of all members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I offer sincere thanks to the legal team, which at all times kept us right on a subject that is quite taxing for people who are not up on the law of Scotland and the United Kingdom. As Jackson Carlaw generously referred to me, I equally generously refer to colleagues on the committee, who at all times showed a degree of application and dedication to what I have already described as a complex subject.
In absolute fairness, I take this opportunity to refer to colleagues and former colleagues who were members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee during the previous session, because the process was kicked off under the convenership of Dr Sylvia Jackson. The previous Subordinate Legislation Committee laid the foundations for much of the work that we went on to do and that will be completed today.
On a personal note, I thank the Minister for Parliamentary Business for his accommodating attitude at all times. Both formally and informally, he has come a long way to meet us in the middle and to try and deliver something acceptable to both sides. It would be wrong not also to mention the team that the minster has had behind him, in Her Majesty’s civil service. That is why we are where we are today.
On Helen Eadie’s amendments, I give credit where it is due. Helen has tracked the various issues constantly, and she has put an enormous amount of time and effort into that work. I acknowledge the gracious manner in which she did not press her amendments today. Certainly, on the issue relating to timescale, some of us on the committee, in not agreeing with Helen Eadie—I hope in a fair and friendly way—felt that we were in danger of bringing the Scottish Parliament and its procedures into some disrepute if we laid ourselves open to the accusation of unnecessarily drawing out processes. The press is critical sometimes, and we want to be seen to demonstrate that we are acting as efficiently as we possibly can. I acknowledge Helen Eadie’s contribution.
The bill is about improving the process of governance. It is about how we probe and evaluate that governance. It is about the Government and the Parliament acting as counterbalances. In a small way, as Jackson Carlaw said, today demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament, and indeed the Scottish Government, are coming of age. We have now broken free from the 1998 transitional arrangements. We have taken them, and we have changed them. The bill that we will, I hope, agree to later today is something that we can say is our own. We have made it ourselves—it is not something that we have inherited from a Westminster act, albeit a well-intentioned one.
We might take different views on how far we wish to stray from the intent of the Scotland Act 1998, and that is reflected through the different views of the parties that are represented in the chamber, but the point is that we have grown up. In a small way, as Jackson Carlaw said, what we are doing today will improve the processes of both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
14:57
I am sure that you will agree, Presiding Officer, that this is a momentous occasion in the life of a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill is the first bill in the Parliament for which we have been the lead committee. Usually, most of the committee’s work lies in preparation, with its actual meetings lasting a brief few minutes. Indeed, I believe that we hold the parliamentary record for that.
How things changed when the bill came before us, with long, complex sessions, including, so I am told, the longest witness answer ever heard in the Scottish Parliament. That is what comes of asking lawyers to give evidence to a committee. I said complex. To be frank, the complexities could have overwhelmed us had it not been for the skilled, diplomatic and tactful support of our legal team and the committee clerks, for which I am sure every committee member owes a deep, deep debt of gratitude—not only committee members but all members, given the vital role that they play in appropriately scrutinising the Government’s legislative output.
I add my thanks to the expert witnesses, who gave up so much time to help us through proceedings.
Through the bill, the Parliament has managed to move on from the temporary measures that were adopted when it was established 10 years ago, so that we now have our own bespoke method of dealing with legislation, as befits a mature democracy. The scrutiny process has been marked by remarkable co-operation between Government and committee, with many of our suggestions and proposed amendments to the bill being willingly accepted by the Government. I give the Government credit for that.
Members will be relieved that time limitations prevent me from covering every aspect of the bill, despite the generous offer that the Presiding Officer made earlier. I am particularly pleased that we have clarified the procedure to be adopted when powers are combined—it is covered in section 33—and that the higher power will always take precedence.
We had considerable debate about the future of the Queen’s printer for Scotland, in this electronic age when communication is more likely to be by e-mail, rather than letter. We considered that information technology has not yet progressed to the point at which we can completely dispense with the printed record. It was pointed out to us that some libraries hold books that are hundreds of years old, and we could not guarantee that electronic copies could last so long. Therefore, the office of the Queen’s printer for Scotland will still have an obligation to produce at least some hard copies of acts and statutory instruments, so that they can be preserved for posterity. The approach will avoid a name change for the official in question; “Queen’s e-mailer” does not sound quite so important, does it?
A debate has rumbled on for years about whether 21 days, 28 days or 40 days should be the minimum period before a statutory instrument that is subject to negative procedure can come into force after being laid before the Parliament. I join in members’ admiration of Helen Eadie for sprinting to the tape to give a concise explanation of the complicated suggestions in that regard. The issue has been settled today and for that we are truly grateful. All proposals were well thought out and all had merit, but a final decision had to be made and we can now move on to a new era in the management of legislation in the Parliament.
At first sight, the bill might seem formal and dull, but it is really exciting. It modernises how we do our business and allows our Parliament to go about its work more efficiently. Members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee have largely thrown aside political attitudes and worked together—mainly harmoniously, despite the evidence of today’s debate—to ensure the best possible outcome.
I would like to quash the rumour that the Scottish National Party punishes its members by appointing them to the Subordinate Legislation Committee—I would like to do that, but I have been on the committee for my entire time as a member of the Scottish Parliament, so I think that there might be truth in the rumour. In the context of comments that members have made in the debate, I will say that there has been a bit of a suspicious link between some Labour members’ appearance on the committee and their supposed indiscretions in the past. However, I am certain that that is a mere statistical aberration rather than a representation of the truth of the matter. I am certain that I and Helen Eadie will serve many, many more months on the committee, so I hope that I am correct in my assumption.
This is a good bill, which has been dealt with co-operatively by all parties. I commend it to the Parliament.
15:02
I thank the Subordinate Legislation Committee clerks and members. It is appropriate, too, to congratulate the minister on his collaborative approach. He and his officials handled all the issues that the committee raised in an efficient, friendly and responsive way. We welcomed that.
As Ian McKee said, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has made history in two ways. It was lead committee on a bill for the first time, and, as the Official Report shows, its members heard the longest answer ever given by a witness to a committee of the Parliament—at least, that is what Ian McKee and other committee members said. I leave it to members to identify the witness in question. I will spare him the embarrassment of naming him in the chamber. I know who he is and he knows who he is.
Until now, the transitional arrangements have been regulated by transitional orders made under the Scotland Act 1998. Although the bill is short it is highly important from a legal point of view. It deals principally with technical matters, and given the legal nature of its content it will be of most interest to academics and the legal community. It contains only one new measure to make it easier to manage the process of consolidating legislation; it broadly restates the existing law, with amendments where appropriate, to clarify and modernise the legal position. However, Jackson Carlaw tried on more than one occasion to persuade committee members that the bill was “thrilling reading”—the Official Report shows that he used those words.
A range of issues emerged during our consideration of the bill. We considered whether documents could be served electronically and whether the Keeper of the Records of Scotland could keep records in electronic form or whether they must be available in hard copy. We talked about consolidation acts, acts of the old Parliament of Scotland, effects on warrants and byelaws and the integration of European Union law. We took evidence on the implications of changes in EU law. The citizen is entitled to see changes in EU law in British or Scottish regulations before such changes become binding on him.
There were only 17 responses to the Government’s consultation, perhaps because of its highly technical nature. We understand that.
During our evidence-taking sessions, we heard from a range of witnesses, such as the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Commission. We heard about the changes in the Crown’s relationship to Scotland that particularly exercised Jackson Carlaw.
I thank colleagues for their generous—I suspect that that should be in inverted commas—comments, their perseverance and their understanding as I worked my way through 24 amendments. I tied my colleagues to the committee for almost three hours that afternoon. I am not sure that they were blessing me then; I think there might have been blessings in a different sense.
I also thank Paul Martin for his generous comments and for reassuring me about my membership of the committee.
One aspect of the committee that we should keep secret is how long we attend for each meeting. I say to Ian McKee that I am not sure that it was wise to let that out to our business managers. If we let all members know about it, they will all queue up to serve on the committee.
The process of changing the legislation has been a learning experience for me. I have learned particularly about the importance of ensuring that we scrutinise our legislation appropriately and with due care.
We are especially grateful to the officials who serve our committee. Scarcely a week goes by but I marvel at the expertise and sound advice that they provide for the committee. I do not know how they have arrived at such a good knowledge and understanding of how we change our legislation.
I thank the Law Society because I was only the vehicle through which the amendments came. I hope that everyone will agree that the position that we have arrived at in the Parliament today means that our processes will fit Scotland in the 21st century and that our focus will always be on the practical impact that our legislation has on the people whom we represent.
I shall continue to serve on the committee for as long as my business manager requires me to do so and with gratitude.
15:07
Like others, I thank all the members who have contributed, not only to the debate this afternoon, but to the many deliberations on the bill, whether at stage 1 or stage 2. Most of their contributions have been helpful and constructive.
Members know by now that the provisions in the bill are, as I have heard everybody else say, highly technical in nature but of huge importance to the future governance of Scotland. The provisions, when enacted, will form the last part of the essential legal architecture that is needed to allow the Parliament and the Government properly and successfully to govern Scotland—if only it was that easy.
The Government greatly appreciates the comprehensive review of the bill’s provisions that the committees carried out at stage 1. The Subordinate Legislation Committee’s stage 1 report was an extremely useful aid to our further consideration of the bill, and the full and careful consideration of the bill at stage 2 helped to draw out a few further points that were addressed this afternoon.
I am also grateful for the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s continued support for the general thrust of the bill and the policy that it implements, which was expressed during its parliamentary progress. It has been a good example of a strong and effective relationship between the Parliament and the Government.
I was slightly disappointed that Helen Eadie did not press her amendments this afternoon. I was looking forward to saying that anyone who presses such amendments cannot seriously expect to be in Government. I do not know whether that changes my view of the Labour Party, but I have got the comment on the record anyway.
I assure Jackson Carlaw once and for all that this Scottish National Party Government has the best interests of Her Majesty at heart and always will do. I note that that exercised him greatly during the stage 2 debate and I was delighted to give him that complete assurance. The fact that he has accepted it speaks volumes for his attitude to his work in the Parliament.
Like Paul Martin, I am delighted that Margaret Curran is a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I, too, look forward to her continuing to be a member of that committee for some time to come.
I am not aware that Ian McKee and Bob Doris have been in trouble before. Indeed, they have done such a fantastic job on the Subordinate Legislation Committee that—I am sorry, guys—I think that they will need to stay there for some time to come.
I thank Jamie Stone for his gracious comments, which are reciprocated. As Jackson Carlaw said, the way in which Jamie Stone has dealt with this complex bill is testament to his convenership of the committee, particularly the way that he allows a more light-hearted touch in the process. However, now that we know that the committee has such short meetings that it has plenty of time for tea, we will look much more closely at giving the committee a bit more to do, as Jamie Stone will shortly find out when he reads the minutes of the most recent Parliamentary Bureau meeting.
We will be sent to Siberia.
I am sure that the committee will be excited by what is proposed.
On a more serious note, the Government greatly appreciates the comprehensive review of the bill’s provisions that the Subordinate Legislation Committee carried out at stage 1. I am delighted with its work, which has been a serious process of partnership. The committee’s report has ensured that, at the end of the day, we will have finely crafted legislation underpinning the governance of Scotland. The willingness to work together helped to build up a good level of trust on serious matters during the process. I believe that that allowed us to discuss and exchange views in a robust manner without losing sight of the ultimate goal.
Together, we have taken the rules that were handed down to us by Westminster and remodelled them to serve the needs of the people of Scotland better. We have thus taken a further step on our constitutional journey. The bill will stand as a significant milestone on that path.
Like Jamie Stone, I thank the civil servants who have supported me during the process. They continually had to answer my question, “Can you please explain this to me in layperson’s terms?” As those who have been involved in this highly technical bill will know, that has not always been an easy process, but my civil servants have supported me fantastically all the way through.
The co-operative nature of our work on the bill serves as an outstanding example of the constructive relationship that exists between the Government and the Parliament. I commend the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament.